Thursday, July 2, 2015

Bhakti Caru Resigns / Mayapur cows / Narayana Maharaja 2000


[PADA NOTE 2015: There are a few folks who say "PADA wants all the credit for challenging the bogus GBC gurus." Hee hee, nope, because whoever "gets credit" for opposing these deviant acharyas is put on their hit list. Its dangerous. Who wants to be put on a hit list? 

We are however glad at least some folks gradually woke up on these issues, because nowadays, many folks are finally discussing these issues. Even the people who do not like us are finally discussing all this, that means PADA and our few allies, with no small amount of help from the media, police and courts, forced these issues. And now Bangalore has had to do the same basic thing, use the courts and media to oppose these false acharyas. Good progress! ys pd] 

From: (pada)

* PADA editorials
* GURU resigns because of lady's whining?
* TARA Devi Dasi

2) Will HH Bhakti Charu Swami take the next step?
3 GAUDIYA MATHA UPDATE from a devotee (AD)

Dear folks, PAMHO. AGTSP.

[PADA is an online newsletter going out to over 1,000 devotees and Hindu's. Please let us know if you have comments, or if you are not interested. We try our best to keep our mailing list in order. Jai Srila Prabhupada!]

Please let us know if you wish to add other addresses or cancel your subscription. PADA also may or may not endorse all of the statements found in our featured letters.

PADA editorial


He says that he just cannot take it any longer: two ladies have been whining on the internet. I resign! I toss in the towel! Oh for sooth, two ladies are whining! That means I cannot be the acharya of the Jagat anymore?

Its Zantac time again folks. How many ladies are whining on the internet out there anyway people? Maybe zillions! So, that means I am no longer the sum total of the demigods? No, that means that issues such as the poison report are coming out and I don't want to be forced into an official reply to an official inquiry. Good timing oh master of the masters!


TARA Devi Dasi

She wrote a scathing, but probably true, report of some of the goings on in Alachua which was posted on VNN. What always amazes us is how these ladies have to boldly take off their gloves and come out swinging on these issues. There are of course some very nice devotees in Alachua who support PADA's effort and, but as she reports, there are some rather excessive problematic types. Our view is that until the worship is purified unilaterally, then there will always be problems pervading the overall situation.



"COM: Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" wrote: [Text 2981933 from COM]

Dear prabhus,

I have heard within the last few days from a devotee very well associated with Mayapur that they are still sending away their calves. Is it true that since last year when I sent a report they are still sending away calves? The devotee who informed me is a resident in Mayapur and has an interest in cow protection. We all may have noticed the recent edition of the BTG showing the mayapur city development. In one picture there was a man plowing ISKCON's land with a team of white oxen. I didn't see any of those oxen last year. 

All the land was being cultivated by tractors and rotovators. This picture then is perhaps something from the archives. If so it has sent a complete misrepresented picture of where mayapur is right now. Perhaps it was a conjecture of the future.

On a far more serious note is it true that mayapur is still sending away their calves. Last year Mayapur was breeding 40 calves a year. If they have sent some away, how many? Balabhadra Prabhu please can you shed some light on this serious accusation regarding Mayapur? ys syamasundara dasa Bhaktivedanta Manor


Anyway -- I know the GBC has IMPORTANT things to discuss every year in Mayapur such as the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada's body (ISKCON) by ritviks. So there must be other organizations who will take cow protection more seriously --then, maybe we can reform ISKCON. RPd (Ram Prasad)

[PADA: Amazing? The GBC can let cows go missing so they can spend their time discussing the ritviks. This is like a doctor spending his time discussing football scores while his patients are dying.]


2) Will HH Bhakti Charu Swami take the next step?

Dear Prabhus:

PAMHHO, AGTSP, and Hare Krishna. I like to share few thoughts about resignation of HH Bhakti Charu Swami from the GBC.

1) First, I would like to thank Ameyatma Prabhu for continuing his efforts for protecting and upholding Srila Prabhupada's name, fame, and his teachings. He has made many good points in his letter to HH BCS and JPS.

2) Second, in this case, Dhyanakund Devi made the initial offense of belittling Srila Prabhupada and Madhusudani Radha made the second offense by allowing / publishing / supporting such offenses and by removing Mahananda Prabhu from the conference because he challenged such belittling taking place on a public WEB site claiming to be friend of the GBC -- but not controlled by the GBC (one may ask then how is the GBC final authority of ISKCON if someone can not be controlled by the GBC? You see! Or are these guys openly defying the GBC?)

3) Third, the greatest offense was made by the ISKCON leaders (GBCs, Gurus,
Sanyasis, TPs) who did nothing to challenge Dhyanakund's views belittling Srila Prabhupada. One has to conclude that the ISKCON GBCs and Gurus must think that there is nothing wrong in views expressed by Dhyankunda and others. So the belittling of Srila Prabhupada continues.

4) Fourth, so in this regard every one should appreciate that HH Bhakti Charu Swami has recognized his failure to protect the name and fame of Srila Prabhupada and has resigned as GBC. As Vidurji walked out from the kingdom of corrupt kurus, this statement accepting his failure by HH BCS may bring some thing good. At least GBC junta has to face the fact that one of them made his displeasure with them known to the public.

5) Fifth, one may raise few questions as to why HH BCS resigned from the GBC and what would he accomplish by doing it? Why did he not stay within the system and try to correct the system? Is he resigning because of this issue or many more issues? One may feel that BCS must have lost hope and felt that the GBC junta and Gang of Rubber Stamped Gurus is beyond repair.
Otherwise, why resign?

6) Sixth, one may ask where was HH BCS over the last 22 years during which more than 90% of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have been driven away, and once flourishing North American temples have been empty for at least the last 15 years, Back To Godhead Magazine circulation has gone down from 1 million a month in 1975 to less than 10 thousand a month now, and so on.

7) Seventh, one may further ask where was HH BCS over the last 22 years during which so many men, women, and children were intimidated, raped, molested, and some devotees have been even murdered. One can give benefit of doubt and conclude that better late then never that HH BCS has now awakened. Yet what does he intend to do to address all this?

8) Eighth, most will agree that the GBC junta is a very clever gang of politicians expert at manipulating people despite their well known mistakes, if not crimes. They make statement to soften up any one who starts to doubt or question them or any thing that in not in line of their thoughts. HH BCS admits how he himself was softened up when he says: "As a matter of fact a couple of months back I voiced my concern about this issue in the com after receiving a letter from Shyamasundar Prabhu. And when Jayapataka Maharaj mentioned that she apologized for her mistake I felt satisfied and decided to drop the issue.". But then he says: "However, now I can see that that apology was not real".

9) Ninth, the question is what will HH BCS do now and what will the GBC junta and gang of Gurus will do to HH BCS? Tenth, HH BCS says in his resignation
letter: "I don't know Ameyatma Prabhu personally, nevertheless, I hear his voice as the echo of the helpless cry of many sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada. 

10) BCS says -- :I feel extremely regretful about my inability to do anything to defend Srila Prabhupada's honor and protect his ISKCON. Therefore, I hereby submit my resignation from the GBC as one of its members." What about all the other "dishonors" that have been going on against the guru parampara, ISKCON, its members and so on?

11) Eleventh, my suggestion is that Maharaj should become fearless and expose all nonsense that has gone within the ISKCON walls for last 22 years. Full house cleaning is required. No use giving up. You have been teaching Bhagavad Gita so long. How can you give up? What is meaning of words like "yuddhaya krit nischaya" and "hato va prapyasi swargam" etc. Maharaj, do not give up but stand up and fight.

12) Twelfth, apology and regrets have purpose. Apology should mean admission of mistake, repentance for the mistake, restitution, and correction in behavior. Without these elements apology has no meaning. 

13) This almost appears as a fake or forced apology which has no meaning. So now act to promote the truth. Thirteenth, now you have unshackled your self from the trappings of GBC junta. Even then the GBC junta will try to pacify you and some how try to keep you in their control. But will you take the next step? Maharaj, will you act as an unshackled brave and free men seeking the truth, listening to the truth, promoting the truth and uprooting the evil no matter where you find it? This has to be the conclusion after one wakes up from the regrets and feelings of inability. Surely, you can do at least few things.

14) Fourteenth, Otherwise, Maharaj, the mood of posturing each other with praise will continue in the GBC guru junta without your leadership, as pointed out by Ameyatma Prabhu. Here is the Sanskrit verse: Ustranam grahe lagnam, gardabhaha shanti pathakaha | parasparam prashasanti, aho rupam, aho dvani ||

Once there was a marriage ceremony at the house of the camels, and donkeys were invited as priests (rittviks) to perform peace ceremony. But what happened is that during the occasion they lavishly praised each other. The donkeys praised beautiful features of the camels and the camels praised the sweet voice of the donkeys. Maharaj, you said: "I hear his voice as the echo of the helpless cry of many sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada". Please take the next step and do some thing, even if it may be too little. So many devotees are looking for good leaders. Please be one. Thank you and Hare Krishna.

Your friend and humble servant, Gadadhar Dasa


GAUDIYA MATHA UPDATE from a devotee (AD)

Dear Prabhu:

AD: In my last email Narayana maharaja did not use the term GBC anywhere. How is it possible to answer your questions when you do not address the points he is making. ie: You can see that in Vedas, Upanisads, anywhere, rtvik guru (i.e. a GBC) system is not given, that [there is] any rtvik-guru. Never.

[PADA: That is the problem, Narayana maharaja (NM) does not define what the GBC system is? Srila Prabhupada said that some GBC would act as rtivks in the early 1970s, and he confirmed that function later in 1977. Yet NM does not support this order?

Instead, NM supports, as acharyas, the exact people who violated their guru's "GBC" order as it was given in the post-1930s, namely Tirtha, Madhava and Sridhara maharajas? And NM supported the post-1977 GBC as acharyas, indeed he said that folks like Bhavananda gave diksha, and that when these folks fail, you need re-initiation. But Srila Prabhupada would argue that Bhavananda never was a guru? He never gave initiation?

If the acharya orders a GBC system, then that GBC system is in the Vedas? NM is separating the Vedas from the words of the acharyas, but the Vedas are the words of the acharyas? NM also says that Tirtha Maharaja is an acharya. Yet Srila Prabhupada says that Tirtha is a deviant who (in the post 1930s) said, "Oh, our guru must have made me the next guru, because the words 'GBC' are not found in shastra." Srila Prabhupada says these people "self-appointed" themselves as gurus, and they are severe offenders for dismantling the GBC system. Why are we citing Tirtha maharaja as an acharya, and giving his self same identical arguments, when Srila Prabhupada says he is a cockroach acharya, a black snake, a Ravana, indeed, he is the Duryodhana of the Gaudiya Matha and so on?

Under Srila Prabhupada's GBC plan, all along, Ritviks were a layer of the GBC, as we recall even in 1973. Also, for example, Atreya Rsi was both the GBC and ritvik for Iran. He was the GBC and he was also the ritvik. So, the ritvik function was and is part and parcel of the GBC function. To say that there is no such thing as GBC, with some of them acting as ritviks, defies the whole system Srila Prabhupada made. And he said all along that he was going to have a GBC manage after his departure. He said this thousands of times, "There will be a GBC after my departure." And he added the function of ritvik to GBC's in the early 1970s.

In short, some "Governing Body" members are also acting as officiating priests, ritviks, and the GBC as a body is supposed to monitor these priests. This is how religions function all over the world? And this is the order of the acharya. So how can we say this is not "in the Vedas" since the Vedas are the words of the acharyas? Srila Saraswati Thakura also ordered a GBC system, and his followers deviated and claimed that "there is no such thing as GBC in shastra." Srila Prabhupada calls them severe offenders and so on. And the worst deviants from that order, NM cites as his examples of "acharyas"?

Therefore, NM maharaja de facto ignores if not discredits the GBC function, but he was giving gopi classes to the GBC and de facto saying they were fit for such talks? Anyway, that is also basically what Sridhara and Tirtha said in 1936. They said that the GBC system, i.e. the proxy or ritvik system, does not exist, despite that this is the order of Srila Saraswati thakura? Read Tarun Krishna's recent post on VNN, he says that there was a ritvik (i.e. sympathizers for the GBC idea) group in the post 1930s and that Sridhara Maharaja not only challenged them, he made bogus people into gurus.

And Srila Prabhupada said that some of the dissident devotees who challenged Sridhara's bogus gurus were banned, beaten and assassinated. And the orchestators of that mayhem, are NM's idea of acharyas? NM says that Sridhara Maharaja is an acharya? The person credited with ruining the Gaudiya Matha by enforcing the worship of a deviant as their acharya? No, these are the people who are credited with ruining the mission by making deviants into acharyas. These are the people who tossed out the order of their guru, i.e. shastra?

You also said that if one of our God brothers is successful as acharya, "We'd be envious, just like members of the Gaudiya Matha were envious of Srila Prabhupada." This is mental speculation on your part. If one of our God brothers was organizing worldwide preaching, harimana samkirtana, prasadam distribution, college preaching programs, and he was attracting bona fide scholars and so on, we might join him and help him? How can you say that we would not join him but we would be envious? And why do you think envy is the natural sentiment? "You'd be envious too." Envious like the Gaudiya Matha's kanisthas posing as gurus? That is the standard?

No, this is your smokescreen to avoid the real history. And that is: that Srila Prabhupada says his God brothers are envious of him. And when Madhava maharaja came to Mayapura to harass Srila Prabhupada, out of sheer envy, that meeting was tense, grim, threatening, I know because I was there. Now NM says that this same Madhava maharaja is his idea of an acharya?

The envious insulter? This man hated Srila Prabhupada, clearly. And that is why Srila Prabhupada said that some of his God brothers are envious, they are neophytes, they are kanisthas with no ability to preach, and so on. Envy is the quality of some of the deviant kanisthas, the bogus kanisthas.

So, why is NM saying that the people who are clearly manifest as envious (and not even up to the bona fide kanistha level) are acharyas? People who are envious kanisthas cannot go back to Godhead, because that is for the "free from envy" class. Srila Prabhupada said he wanted a guard posted after they visited, fearing violence from these "God brothers," and all you can say is that --I too would also be envious of my God brother if he became and acharya in the same way (and I'd practically threaten violence)?

Even if that became true, I became envious and glared at the acharya, that would mean I am --not-- an acharya myself? Moreover, people who glare at a Vaishnava have to take birth as a vulture, says Chanakya pandit. So, the vulture class is your idea of an acharya --who is assisting the gopis? The envious glaring vulture class are the assistants of the gopis, and acharyas?

How can you establish that "envy" is a spiritual quality, at all, and worse, that this is found in the acharyas? The residents of Vaikuntha have not got even a pinch of envy. Do you think the Vaikuntha-ites envy other pure devotees who are preaching? No, never. They praise and glorify their preacher colleagues. And they only have pity for those fools who envy the acharyas, seeing their unfortunate future, which Srila Prabhupada says of Kirtanananda, when he envied Srila Prabhupada --"his future is very dark."

How can we mix "dark future" and "Vaikuntha"?

And why are we saying the envious are pure or acharyas? This is most misleading and offensive to the gopis etc. Srila Prabhupada says: to envy the acharya is to envy the Supreme Lord. Now, you are saying, that is the qualification of the acharya, he is envious --of other acharyas? Srila Prabhupada said some of his God brothers are neophytes and that is why they are envious, he never said, they are envious because they are acharyas? No. Envy is a material disease, it is never found in the acharyas. Gurusuh narah matih ....narakah sah.]

AD: Here you add GBC, which changes the whole point. No where does NM maharaja say Srila Prabhupada's idea of a GBC is wrong.

[PADA: Yes he does. He says that the GBC system, which is the ritvik or proxy system, is bogus and he says that all the time? "Rtivik" is merely a layer of the GBC function. And Srila Prabhupada said that they could be added and eliminated by votes. Even Sridhara Maharaja agreed that the annual Mayapura "adding and eliminating by vote" was the system Srila Prabhupada had ordered. However, he mistakenly thought that this "adding and eliminating annually by vote" applies to the acharya! But it cannot. "Votes" can only refer to establishing managers, proxies, ritviks, GBCs and so on. "Votes" are for the proxy, not for the acharyas. How can defective people vote in the acharya anyways? And NM says that Sridhara Maharaja, concocter of this "acharya by GBC votes" system, is an acharya?]

AD: You say "why is he still saying that Tamal and company were made as diksha gurus and not GBC/ ritviks." Where does he say this, you say he is still saying?

[PADA: He said that the GBC were giving diksha and that when they fell their followers needed re-initiation. That is what he has said. If he has changed that, he has made no public comment that we know of? So the GBC system was ordered, yes, you admit, but he does not even discuss it. Good point. So why not? Instead he says that the named deviants of the Gaudiya Matha are --acharyas and that you need diksha from such people, and moreover that such people may be envious (kanishtas) of the real acharya?]
Thanks pd


THE ISKCON JOURNAL CONTINUES (p.21): Narayana Maharaja: "Until then: watch. And see. And Gauranga, Krishna Chandra, Srila Prabhupada, for some time are to be treated as guru, shiksha guru. And when a reliable Brahma-nistha and Sabda brahma knowing guru is found, then he certainly should be re-initiated."

PADA: Question: Regarding your alleged statement about "re-initiation" as quoted above, where does this idea come from? Srila Prabhupada has never once mentioned this idea of a bona fide guru [i.e. the person who would have
given the first initiation or diksha] falling down and the concept of a "re-initiation" in His books and purports? Rather, he says that it is the neophyte, not the bona fide Acharya, who is the person subject to contamination and fall-down. The Kanistha-Bhakta may make gradual progress from his contamination or else he may fall down. However, Srila Prabhupada warns, if the neophyte poses as a guru he will certainly fall down, or he is already fallen down due to the offense of imitation.

So how could the neophyte have given a bona fide diksha in the first place [for which there needs to re-initiation]? For example, since Bhavananda was a neophyte only, he was never authorized to act as a diksha-guru in the first place by Srila Prabhupa's standard. Bhavananda also engaged in unauthorized activities, so how can we say that he was giving bona fide "diksha initiation" to anyone? By what authority do we say he was giving diksha? 


THE ISKCON JOURNAL continues (p.22): Narayana Maharaja: "So many have come to me and I have said like this. If you don't want another guru, if you
have no faith in anyone now, if you have been initiated by one and he is fallen, and you took initiation again and again and another falls, then you should wait for a little time and see whether a qualified devotee is there from whom we can take re-initiation. If we see that no such person can be found , then you should treat Swamiji as your guru, and go on your chanting and devotional service. Take Swamiji as your shiksha guru or have some other as shikhas guru, and this will do. And again if you see that some qualified person is found, then you should be re-initiated."

Question: Again how can one have been "initiated" by a person who has
material leanings [anarthas], who has no authority to act as a guru [guru-avajna or apa-sampradaya], or who is falling or who has already fallen [patita]? If one has to receive "reinitiation," this automatically implies he has already received a bona fide initiation in the first place?

This could not have occurred if the guru was not realized, and had material
leanings from square one? Srila Prabhupada has never discussed this idea of
"reinitiation" anywhere in His books. Has there ever been one example of a
bona fide Vaishnava acarya in our disciplic succession who has fallen
down.? Please precisely cite the purports and writings of Srila Prabhupada
our mutual Shiksa-Guru.

Question: When this multiple initiation and wave after wave of gurus
occurred in the Gaudiya Matha, Srila Prabhupada said that this was killing
guru as we shall see below? How can this process be endorsed?


Srila Prabhupada: "He, [ HDG Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura,
founder of the Gaudiya Matha] before passing away, He gave them all
direction - and he never said that this man should be the next [guru]
acharya. But these people, just after he passed away, they began to fight,
'Who shall be the next acharya?..."That is the failure. They never thought,
'Guru Maharaja gave us instruction on so many things, why did he not say,
"This man should be the next acharya?"' They wanted to create somebody
artificially as acharya and everything failed. "They did not even consider
common sense that if guru maharaja had wanted to APPOINT somebody as
acharya, why he did not say? He said so many things and this point he
missed? The main point? 

And they insisted on it. They declared, 'Come on unfit persons to become acharya,' then ANOTHER man comes, then ANOTHER, then ANOTHER. " So better to remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by Guru Maharaja. So that is perfection. And as soon as it was announced that, 'Guru maharaja is dead, now I am so advanced that I can kill my guru and become [guru]'...then he is finished." (Srila Prabhupada conversation August 15 19/76 Bombay, India ) To sum, Srila Prabhupada has not mentioned this idea "another man comes" [for the process of reinitiating] favorably anywhere in His books and purports.


THE ISKCON JOURNAL continues: p.22 Narayana Maharaja: "Vyasadeva is also always present. Madhvacharya is also, Brahma is also, Sukadeva Goswami, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Ishvara Puri ...then what is the use of taking new initiation from other gurus? Understand me?" RS: Yes. Narayana Maharaja: 

"But yet, guru parampara is going on. So from them who are present acharyas, from them, initiation is essential in the Vaishnava cult." RS: Why is it essential that initiation come from the physically present spiritual master? Narayana Maharaja: Because we have no qualification to see the message from them-- the past acharyas-- because they are pure cit vastu, aprakrita vastu, [spiritual, non material] We are not aprakrita vastu. So only a very, very qualified person can have a direct link with them. We cannot have any link, so we have to link to the present guru."

Question: As your Holiness may be aware, Srila Prabhupada was very much opposed to this post 1937 "living guru" idea as it evolved in the Gaudiya Matha. Indeed, he stated very emphatically that this line of reasoning was a deviation from Srila Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada's order and the specific malefic idea which had destroyed the Gaudiya Matha and its preaching efforts.

"They [Gaudiya matha gurus] had no authority having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master"] Cc Adi-Lila.

"Regarding the Section 92 case against the Gaudiya Matha, I don't think there is any possibility of compromise. Both the Bagh Bazaar party and the Mayapura party have unlawfully usurped the missionary institution of Srila Prabhupada [namely: HDG Bhaktisiddhnata Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada"]. (
Srila Prabhupada letter to Narayana Maharaja, September 5, 1969)

Rather, Srila Prabhupada's idea is that: in the physical absence of the acharya, the followers should form a managerial board, which he established in his lifetime, and which was intended to continue as the "living persons" or living board of representatives who would continue the preaching, but we should note: that this managerial board was ordered to preach and to initiate "on behalf of the acharya," and not ever to imitate the acharya. 

"His idea [Srila Saraswati Thakura HDGBSSTP] was that you form a Governing
Body and you preach cooperatively and who is Acharya will come out" [Srila
Prabhupada letter to Rupanuga dasa, April 24, 1974]

Srila Prabhupada said in His Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta purports: "Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all of his disciples to form a Governing Body and conduct the mission cooperative. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acharya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acharya, and they split into two factions over who the next acharya would be. Consequently both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master." (CC Adi 12.8)

* Further the idea that we have no contact with Srila Prabhupada because He
is not physically present is not acceptable according to Srila Prabhupada Himself:

--" If I depart there is no cause for lamentation. I will always be with
you through My books and orders. I will always remain with you in that
way." [Srila Prabhupada conversation: Vrindavan , India. May 17, 1977]


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.